Wine-Swilling Pearlanders

Pearland is known as what is called a "partially-wet" jurisdiction. Certain alcohol sales are legal, others are not. For example, beer may be purchased at Kroger, but basically nothing with a higher alcohol content. (My favorite, hard cider, is not legal.) Restaurants can sell beer and liquor by the glass. When I first moved to Pearland, one had to join the restaurant's private club to buy liquor, but not any more. Bars are basically legislated out of existence by requiring that at least 50% of revenues must come from food in order to sell liquor by the drink.

As I hinted before, there was a local option election a couple of years ago to allow liquor by the glass at restaurants. Pearlanders were told at that time that this was no slippery slope and that there would be no more elections to loosen alcohol laws. Apparently, this is not the case. Pearlanders will see another alcohol related referendum on the ballot this November. This one will allow retail stores to sell beverages with a higher alcohol content than is currently allowed. Retailers such as Kroger will then be able to sell items such as wine and hard cider in addition to beer.

One of the arguments I've seen in favor of making Pearland more wet is the probable increase in sales tax revenue.

If passed by vote of 50 percent plus one, the elections will keep alcohol tax revenue currently going to Harris County and other wet areas at home, advocates said. Stores in Pearland and many other Brazoria County cities currently cannot sell wine, losing sales from customers who prefer to shop for alcohol and groceries at one place, they said...

[Pearland Chamber of Commerce Chairman Gary Bucek] projected that additional sales tax revenue from alcohol sales could bring Pearland between $250,000 and $500,000 yearly.

Wow! $250,000 to $500,000 in additional sales tax revenue to Pearland! Just how much wine do we Pearlanders drink?

Pearland's sales tax rate is 1.5%. The state and county portions of the sales tax are irrelevant because Mr. Bucek's claim was the tax accretion solely to Pearland. Besides, with respect to the state's 6.25% sales tax, it doesn't really matter if alcohol sales are made in Pearland or Harris County -- either way the money goes to Austin. So in order to earn $250,000 to $500,000 in additional sales tax revenue, there must be $16.7 million to $33.3 million in wine sales in Pearland. (The Pearland Journal article suggests there might be an increase in Pearland-based sales of grocery complements to wine due to the change in the law, but this is immaterial. A filet mignon purchased at Kroger is not subject to sales tax.)

Pearland's population is 80,503, including minor children. Based on this, we can determine the value of the wine Mr. Bucek thinks Pearlanders will buy from local grocery stores. Per capita, Mr. Bucek assumes that Pearlanders will spend $207-414 per year on wine at grocery stores and a family of four will spend $828-1,656 on wine at grocery stores. Remember, this does not include alcohol purchased at restaurants which is already legal. Nor does it count beer sold at grocery stores and convenience stores, which is already legal. This is essentially Mr. Bucek's expectation on how much wine Pearlanders will buy at retail stores. Even on the low end of Mr. Bucek's range, the average family of four will spend $20 / week, every single week of the year on wine.

For the record, the Anti-Corruption household buys less than a bottle of wine per year. Maybe someone else is drinking two bottles of wine per week to make up for us. Do you average a $20 bottle of wine each and every week of the year?

FWIW, I plan on voting against making Pearland more wet. I don't expect my position to prevail, but I do not like dishonesty. We were told a few years ago that there would be no more alcohol referendums. That wasn't true. Now, we're being given wild projections on how much tax revenue will be raised by allowing wine sales at retail stores. If these people are on the up-and-up, why can't they tell the truth?

Worst Weather in America

MSNBC has a feature on its broadcasts that confirms my worst stereotype of the mass media, the tendency to portray everything as bad news. MSNBC's feature is called the "Worst Weather in America". MSNBC uses that segment to tell us about the most violent and/or extreme weather events in the country. (If interested, today's worst weather is in the Lake Superior region of Minnesota and Wisconsin.)

The Chronicle is not immune to this stereotype. In the linked article, the Chron bemoans the fact that this is "Houston's wettest July in 46 years". Apparently, this is causing a hardship to suburban stay-at-home moms this summer (one from Pearland is highlighted!). It all seems a little overwrought to me. Mrs. Anti-Corruption is a stay-at-home mom, and I haven't heard any complaints from her.

In fact, a couple of days before this article came out, I discussed among friends how mild this summer has been. We were all certain that heavy cloud cover and rain-cooled air were responsible for the lower tempuratures. I made the observation that I liked the rain; my yard looks great with little effort on my part.

Anyway, I gathered some historical weather data for your pleasure. The departure from normal temperatures is calculated from the average daily high temperatures.

July Precipitation and Temperatures in Houston, Texas source: Wunderground.com

Year.....Precip........Departure from normal temps

2007......9.93*........................-4.0
2006......7.85.........................-2.4
2005......5.30..........................0.0
2004......0.79..........................0.0
2003......5.16.........................-2.3

2002......7.11.........................-0.5
2001......3.01.........................-2.0
2000......0.95..........................1.9
1999......2.55.........................-3.1
1998......2.21..........................1.7

1997......2.52.........................-0.9
1996......0.16.........................-0.7

* 2007 updated through month-end July.

My quick and unscientific conclusion is that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of rainfall and the temperature. In other words, cool rainy days will be cooler than average, and hot sunny days will be warmer than average. July 2007 has provided us with a string of cool rainy days. Since this July has been the wettest July in 46 years, I suspect it has also been one of the coolest in 46 years. (By my measure, it is certainly the coolest July in eleven years.)

Can you imagine if we were experiencing equal and opposite temperature differentials? I mean, what if every day this July had been 4.0 degrees above normal? That would mean an average temp of 98 degrees every day this month! The Chron would be telling us how oppressive this summer is!

The "Worst Weather in America"? Right here in Houston, Texas. Just ask the Chronicle. No matter what the weather is, it is bad. As for me, I like cool days in July.

Who is Eric Egland?

Quite frankly, I know little more than what the AP reports about him in this article. According to the AP, Mr. Egland has been promoted as a potential primary opponent against Jack Abramoff linked Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.). OK, good as far as that goes. After all, long time readers know that I supported Tom Campbell's primary challenge against the corrupt Tom DeLay here in Texas' 22nd district. I think that it is critically important for our party to oust our own corrupt congressmen. The alternative is for Democrats to win seats in Republican districts like those lost by DeLay, Bob Ney (R-Ohio), Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) and JD Hayworth (R-Ariz.) See, unlike Democrats, Republicans tend not to re-elect corrupt members of their own party [See: Rep. William Jefferson (D-La)]

But this quote from Egland is a mystery to me:

"It was amazing," Egland said later. He said he was nearing a decision on running against Doolittle, whom he supported for re-election last year.

"The facts on the ground have changed significantly since November and the average voter in the district is walking away from him," Egland said in an interview.

What facts have changed since November? I mean, I doubt that Rep. Doolittle has accepted any more bribes in the past nine months. He's already neck deep keeping prosecutors at bay for earlier payments received through his wife. But all that was known in November (I first wrote about it in April 2006). Maybe Egland is referring to the FBI raid to acquire evidence related to Julie Doolittle's business. That would seem a little backwards to me. I mean, I'm upset with Rep. Doolittle for accepting bribes through his wife, not because the FBI raided his wife's business records. I hope an enterprising reporter in the Golden State gets Mr. Egland to explain what facts he thinks have changed.

It is good that Mr. Egland, contrary to recent pronouncements from Rep. Doolittle, is on the right side of the biggest issue of our generation, the Global War on Terror. Perhaps that is "the fact on the ground" that Mr. Egland mentioned. But it is more than a little troubling to me that Mr. Egland supported Doolittle's re-election effort last year. It is obvious to me that Mr. Egland is not nearly as sensitive to corruption in government as I am. Certainly we can find a candidate who can recognize the threat Islamic fascists presents to the West and opposes government corruption at the same time. For that reason, I would prefer another candidate to emerge and challenge Rep. Doolittle.

Hayworth Cooperating

According to the AP, former Arizona Congressman JD Hayworth claims to be cooperating with federal investigators looking into the Jack Abramoff matter.

But on closer inspection, that is not what it seems:

Former Republican congressman J.D. Hayworth said Monday that he has sent documents to the Justice Department in response to its investigation of disgraced fundraiser Jack Abramoff.


Hayworth spoke about the Justice Department request during an extended rant against Arizona Republicans, journalists and others whom he blames for helping oust him from office last year.

"I have nothing to hide. I've done nothing illegal or unethical," Hayworth said on his afternoon show on Phoenix radio station KFYI. . .

During the race, Hayworth was heavily criticized for his connections to Abramoff. But on his radio show Hayworth pointed out that he received $2,250 from Abramoff eight years ago.

"I subsequently sent money to charity in that amount." . . .

"I ain't Dick Nixon, and you ain't kicking me around," he said. "I'm right here on the radio, so bring it, brother."

Hayworth isn't cooperating. He's responding to requests for information from investigators. Cooperating implies to me that he is helping investigators. It doesn't appear Hayworth wants to be helpful.

Recall that back in April 2006, I identified Mary Hayworth as a possible member of the Wives Club, the wives of Congressmen who received questionable payments from Abramoff.. Mary Hayworth received $83,000 from Abramoff.

"I strenuously object"

" 'I strenuously object?' Is that how it works? Hm? 'Objection.' 'Overruled.' 'Oh, no, no, no. No, I strenuously object.' 'Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider.' "--Lt. Weinberg (Kevin Pollak) in "A Few Good Men," 1992

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web" feature used this quote on Thursday when making fun of Roy Pearson, a Washington DC administrative judge and plaintiff in a $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaning business which had misplaced a pair of his britches.

Demonstrating that history repeats itself, Travis County DA Ronnie Earle strenuously objects to a recent decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) throwing out conspiracy charges against Tom DeLay in the TRMPAC case.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle wants the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider its decision. . .

"The effect of this decision is to create a separate class of felonies that are indeed 'puny, half-pint' felonies, somewhat different, perhaps less serious and less worthy of diligent enforcement, than the felonies defined in the penal code," Earle said.

"Do these other felonies inherently possess a lesser status ... such that a separate — but not necessarily equal — system of justice must be created for them?"

This is shear puffery by Ronnie Earle. The legislature has corrected the defect in the state's conspiracy law so that future cases like this will not be thrown out of court. Certainly Earle knows this.

What is frightening to me is the level of partisanship by Democrats in the comments at chron.com. An example:

If I were Ronnie Earl (sic) I would have prosecuted DeLay for nothing more than that smug grin he wears on his face! -- KlausVonStein

I truly believe that even my most hardened opponents on the left believe in a broad concept of justice. But as Ronnie Earle and KlausVonStein demonstrate, this guiding principle can be thrown out when pursuing Tom DeLay simply because he is a Republican.

Of course there is a separate and equal partisanship in the Republican Party. Tom DeLay can accept (hundreds of?) thousands in bribes in the Abramoff scandal, but he is innocent merely because he is a Republican.

Expect Ronnie Earle's 'stenuous objection' to essentially be ignored.

CCEL: Vote Gold!

I own some shares in a really neat company called Cryo-Cell (CCEL). Parents who want to save umbilical stem cells for their babies send a specimen to CCEL and CCEL freezes it. As we all know, umbilical stem cells have proven to treat over 70 diseases, unlike embryonic stem cells that haven't been proven to treat anything. The best part of saving your own children's stem cells is that you know with certainty that the stem cells will be compatible with you child.

I only own 0.034% of this company, but you wouldn't know it judging from the number of telephone calls and pieces of mail I've received. I feel like the most popular person on the planet! See, there is currently a proxy fight for control of CCEL's board. The entrenched management seems to feel a sense of entitlement to remain in control of the company despite the fact that the share price has done absolutely nothing over the past five years. A coalition of minority shareholders has put together a slate of nominees for CCEL's board of directors in opposition to the entrenched management.

I haven't been following this matter as closely as I probably should have. Apparently, shareholders who are more engaged have been critical of the current management for some time. As with many stocks, CCEL has a message board on Yahoo! devoted to discussion of CCEL. Now you won't believe this: CCEL's management actually subpoenaed Yahoo! in order to 'out' the shareholders who have been critical of management. I'm not talking about outing the high-profile members of the coalition which is running the opposing slate; I'm talking about outing small-time shareholders who opined on the Yahoo! message board.

I know some bloggers who 'out' or threaten to 'out' anonymous opinion makers. Like CCEL's management, they want to create a chilling effect to stifle discussion. But I am astounded that a public company would waste corporate resources to do this!

Furthermore, CCEL's management doesn't want to amend the corporate by-laws to give minority shareholders a better opportunity to nominate candidates for the Board.

I see a lot in common between CCEL's management and the local Republican party here. A sense of entitlement. A desire to shut out minority voices. Extremely poor management.

Normally, I vote with my dollars when I hold a stock. If I can't stand management, I sell. But I wasn't aware of CCEL's mismanagement until recently. And I was a shareholder on record date. Therefore, I placed my trust in the coalition which has promised more professional management. I voted the Gold Proxy with my shares, and I encourage anyone who owns CCEL to do the same. Vote immediately. The shareholders' meeting is next week.

One Scandal in Two!

The AP recently came out with an article entitled "Doolittle Linked to 2 Bribery Scandals". Here's the thrust of AP's Erica Werner:

Justice Department investigators are focusing on the California Republican's dealings with jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff, including $5,000 monthly checks from Abramoff to Doolittle's wife.

Then there's $37 million in federal funds Doolittle secured for a defense contractor accused of bribing now imprisoned ex-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Brent Wilkes, a benefactor of both Cunningham and Doolittle, is awaiting trial in San Diego on charges of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering.

Yada, yada, yada.

Really nothing new here. It is largely are re-write of an old Sacramento Bee article from May. But the Bee's version was more interesting in my opinion. The Bee went a long way in connecting the Abramoff scandal and the Wilkes/Cunningham scandal. In essence, we're talking about a single large scandal. At the center of it all is Ed Buckham:

Investigators have been looking at links between Abramoff; lobbyist Edwin Buckham, who had been chief of staff to Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas; defense contractor Brent Wilkes; and Kevin Ring, a former Doolittle staffer who later worked for Abramoff. A key element is payments to wives, including Christine DeLay and Julie Doolittle.

Sacramento Bee: 1; AP: 0

Who is Tim Berry?

A couple of months ago, I looked at the players in this scandal who might be offered immunity by the Justice Department. In that post, I offered up a guess that former DeLay Chief of Staff Susan Hirschmann was a good candidate.

The qualifications to make this list are (1) Candidate obviously must have been an aide to Tom DeLay; (2) Candidate must have violated some law or regulation that the DoJ can hang over him/her; (3) Candidate must have had a responsible enough position to be able to provide useful information to the Justice Department; yet (4) Candidate must not be so enmeshed in the scandal that the DoJ wouldn't consider immunity. [Edwin Buckham fails test #3. If Buckham gets immunity, I'll go ballastic.]

Given those constraints I want to hedge my bets and throw another name in the immunized DeLay aide hat: Former Chief of Staff Timothy Berry.

Admittedly, the tea leaves rather small with respect to this speculation. But first, a little factual background courtesy of the Washington Post:

A week later, Abramoff and his partners leased a corporate jet to ferry congressional staffers down to Tampa for the Super Bowl game and a night of gambling aboard a SunCruz ship. Among those aboard were DeLay aide Tim Berry, who is now DeLay's chief of staff, and two staffers to Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.). DeLay's former deputy chief of staff, Tony Rudy, by then a newly minted lobbyist working for Abramoff, was there, too.

Berry failed to report the trip on his disclosure forms. A DeLay spokesman said Berry had no idea SunCruz paid for the trip. He thought it was a Republican fundraising trip allowable under House rules.

The St. Petersburg Times hints that Mr. Berry's trip may not have been legitimate due to the fact that Jack Abramoff had funded it:

None of [the Congressional staffers, including Berry] filed a report for the trip, as congressional rules would require for a privately paid trip to a meeting or speaking engagement. Rules allow them to accept travel expenses for meetings or "fact-finding" trips, but there's been no indication there were any such events over Super Bowl weekend. Other rules prohibit members of Congress and staffers from accepting a gift valued at $50 or more, or a total of $100 or more in a single year.

Mr. Berry meets my criteria:

1. Mr. Berry was an aide to DeLay.
2. Mr. Berry may be on the hook for wrongdoing.
3. Mr. Berry's position as DeLay Chief of Staff would provide him with extraordinary insight into operations of the office.
4. It doesn't appear that Mr. Berry was involved in this scandal any deeper than the Super Bowl trip.

Don't be surprised if you hear Tim Berry's name again.